Blizzard is Suing Valve - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;34631234]why do you guys have to pick sides on this issue exactly? i mean i know it's a forum and shit, but aren't you basically just picking which company you like the most and declaring they should win? that's not how civil law works.[/QUOTE] People are debating

[QUOTE=Santz;34631233]Eul made DOTA, he created it. He was the first owner and Icefrog the latest. The other developers abandoned the game and made their own(LoL and HoN).[/QUOTE] They have, however, contributed just as much to the development of the mod. It's not something that's been made by one or two people. This is why I agree with Blizzard that nobody should be able to copyright DotA. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631240]DOTA isn't a genre...[/QUOTE] DotA is a genre. Some people call it MOBA, or Action RTS, but these are just as valid terms as "DotA"

[QUOTE=The Baconator;34631249]People are debating[/QUOTE] yeah i got that, but i'm not sure it's anything more than a glorified popularity contest

[QUOTE=Santz;34631174]Both the people who made DOTA big are working on Valve, Eul and Icefrog. Why the hell Blizzard should win? That is a retarded thing to say, Blizzard did NOT made the mod, just the engine it was made in. They do not OWN the mod. If you say that, then every single game that has came out of a MOD belongs to the company that made the engine it was first made in.[/QUOTE] Good luck to those who have to explain that to a US judge.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34631261]yeah i got that, but i'm not sure it's anything more than a glorified popularity contest[/QUOTE] Are you not reading the thread?

[QUOTE=Glent;34631250]They have, however, contributed just as much to the development of the mod. It's not something that's been made by one or two people. This is why I agree with Blizzard that nobody should be able to copyright DotA. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] DotA is a genre. Some people call it MOBA, or Action RTS, but these are just as valid terms as "DotA"[/QUOTE] No, ARTS and MOBA is a genre. DotA is not.

[QUOTE=Glent;34631250]DotA is a genre. Some people call it MOBA, or Action RTS, but these are just as valid terms as "DotA"[/QUOTE]DOTA is not a genre, at all. It is the defining example in its genre, but it is not the genre.

I also wonder what was icefrog's message about this.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;34631276]No, ARTS and MOBA is a genre. DotA is not.[/QUOTE] MOBA and ARTS are both terms coined a while after DotA by companies for their own games. Before that, DotA was the name referring to the genre, and it is still widely used as such.

[QUOTE=Glent;34631250]They have, however, contributed just as much to the development of the mod. It's not something that's been made by one or two people. This is why I agree with Blizzard that nobody should be able to copyright DotA.[/QUOTE] The other owners left the game because they felt it was a waste of time because there was no money in it and you say they are entitled to own part of DOTA just because they worked on it? That is not how it works. Many people can work at a company but if they leave its their loss. They may have helped but they have no ground to say "I own part of DOTA because i helped at some point!" If you say that is possible then Gabe should own something in Microsoft because he worked there at some point.

Oh, ok Blizzard, wait until someone else picks up the ball you dropped, and start picking up a legal team. Seriously they had ample time to pick up the name, but now they have no rights to it. They didn't make DOTA, it was third party. They shouldn't really have any stake in the claim, even if it was or was not a dickmove by valve.

[QUOTE=Glent;34631285]MOBA and ARTS are both terms coined a while after DotA by companies for their own games. Before that, DotA was the name referring to the genre, and it is still widely used as such.[/QUOTE] World of Warcraft is a genre. I am going to sue Blizzard because they can't have the rights to a genre.

Saying DOTA is a genre is like saying Wolfenstein is a genre. Saying that Blizzard has any right to DOTA is equally like saying any company has rights to mods made on it's engines.

[QUOTE=Santz;34631289]The other owners left the game because they felt it was a waste of time because there was no money in it and you say they are entitled to own part of DOTA just because they worked on it? That is not how it works. Many people can work at a company but if they leave its their loss. They may have helped but they have no ground to say "I own part of DOTA because i helped at some point!" If you say that is possible then Gabe should own something in Microsoft because he worked there at some point.[/QUOTE] You can't possibly know why every single person stopped working on DotA. All I was saying is that because the current form of DotA is so different to Eul's DotA, and because most of this was not brought about by Icefrog, that those two people shouldn't be viewed as the two sole creators of DotA. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34631303]World of Warcraft is a genre. I am going to sue Blizzard because they can't have the rights to a genre.[/QUOTE] Nobody refers to MMOs as "World of Warcrafts", while many people refer to ARTS games as "DotAs" and almost everyone did before League of Legends coined "MOBA", and some even did then.

[QUOTE=thisispain;34631234]why do you guys have to pick sides on this issue exactly? i mean i know it's a forum and shit, but aren't you basically just picking which company you like the most and declaring they should win? that's not how civil law works.[/QUOTE] Errr, no, people have some actual arguments in there buddy, not "I like X better than Y, X should win" or "X are retards go Y".

[QUOTE=Glent;34631306]You can't possibly know why every single person stopped working on DotA. All I was saying is that because the current form of DotA is so different to Eul's DotA, and because most of this was not brought about by Icefrog, that those two people shouldn't be viewed as the two sole creators of DotA.[/QUOTE] They are not the sole creators but are the ones that continued in the game. The others [B]left[/B]. It is that simple, they stopped helping and abandoned DOTA to made their own, whatever their reasons were. They never asked for any entitlement in the game either, they all wanted to make a new DOTA without the restrictions of the W3 engine.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34630860]I understand where Blizzard is coming from, it's kind of a dick move on Valve's part to go and trademark the name of a mod from someone else's game[/QUOTE] Oh you mean like now Valve trademarked TF2 even though the original TF was a Quake mod? I'm fairly sure Valve bought the rights from the original DOTA creator, much like they did with Team Fortress.

[QUOTE=Santz;34631343]They are not the sole creators but are the ones that continued in the game. The others [B]left[/B]. It is that simple, they stopped helping and abandoned DOTA to made their own, whatever their reasons were. They never asked for any entitlement in the game either, they all wanted to make a new DOTA without the restrictions of the W3 engine.[/QUOTE] I still disagree that anyone should be able to copyright DotA. Yes, they all left, I got that much, of course. But because DotA has been pretty much created by a giant community, that's why I don't think it should be copyrighted, even if most of those creators have left. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dark soul;34631348]Oh you mean like now Valve trademarked TF2 even though the original TF was a Quake mod? I'm fairly sure Valve bought the rights from the original DOTA creator, much like they did with Team Fortress.[/QUOTE] Eul never claimed DotA rights as far as I'm aware.

[QUOTE=dark soul;34631348]Oh you mean like now Valve trademarked TF2 even though the original TF was a Quake mod? I'm fairly sure Valve bought the rights from the original DOTA creator, much like they did with Team Fortress.[/QUOTE]They didn't buy the rights, the last DOTA developer came to work for them and would therefore be bringing any such claims with him, which he can do with as he pleases.

Valve didn't trademark DotA, or Defense of the Ancients. They trademarked Dota. Dota 2 is the sequel to DotA, but it isn't Defense of the Ancients 2.

One would think it also depends on the assets you used. The WarcraftIII map editor may have some EULA passages that allow Blizzard to claim ownership of the name. I don't know, really. I'd rather see game studios develop games, instead of suing the pants off eachother. Guess those legal departments were getting bored or something.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;34631362]Valve didn't trademark DotA, or Defense of the Ancients. They trademarked Dota. Dota 2 is the sequel to DotA, but it isn't Defense of the Ancients 2.[/QUOTE] They are trying to trademark DotA, or Defense of the Ancients, now. That's what got Blizzard stirred up about this.

[QUOTE=Glent;34631352]I still disagree that anyone should be able to copyright DotA. Yes, they all left, I got that much, of course. But because DotA has been pretty much created by a giant community, that's why I don't think it should be copyrighted, even if most of those creators have left. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] Eul never claimed DotA rights as far as I'm aware.[/QUOTE] If no one claims the rights of the game, legally everyone is able to do so. It's good that a responsible, well established company like Valve decided to copyright the name (and employ some of the first game's modders along with it) before one of those troll companies who patent random shit and sue people for it did it.

[QUOTE=Simski;34631199]That is a terrible comparison.[/QUOTE] Why? That situation is just like this one. TF was a quake mod. Valve hired the developers, registered the trademark, made the sequels. Only, ID didn't try to get a piece of the pie, when they weren't entitled to it

[QUOTE=V12US;34631365]One would think it also depends on the assets you used. The WarcraftIII map editor may have some EULA passages that allow Blizzard to claim ownership of the name. I don't know, really. I'd rather see game studios develop games, instead of suing the pants off eachother. Guess those legal departments were getting bored or something.[/QUOTE]EULA are shaky at best in legal battles. It is incredibly difficult to get one to stick.

[QUOTE=Glent;34631367]They are trying to trademark DotA, or Defense of the Ancients, now. That's what got Blizzard stirred up about this.[/QUOTE] Uh where in the article does it say that?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34631368]If no one claims the rights of the game, legally everyone is able to do so. It's good that a responsible, well established company like Valve decided to copyright the name (and employ some of the first game's modders along with it) before one of those troll companies who patent random shit and sue people for it did it.[/QUOTE] I would rather the court rule that nobody could copyright DotA, though I do agree that it is better for Valve to own that term than a "random troll company". [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Banhfunbags;34631384]Uh where in the article does it say that?[/QUOTE] [quote]In 2010, Valve - who is working on a successor to the original called DOTA 2 - began attempts to trademark the word "DOTA", [/quote]

[QUOTE=Noth;34631373]Why? That situation is just like this one. TF was a quake mod. Valve hired the developers, registered the trademark, made the sequels. Only, ID didn't try to get a piece of the pie, when they weren't entitled to it[/QUOTE]Maybe Blizzard is afraid they'll be bought from Activision by Bethesda also like iD. And then end up very closely partnered with Valve.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34631375]EULA are shaky at best in legal battles. It is incredibly difficult to get one to stick.[/QUOTE] True, but it's still an argument they could use. They provided they assets, meaning they in part have ownership. Law sucks. Valve should challenge Blizzard to a game of QuakeIII.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;34631362]Valve didn't trademark DotA, or Defense of the Ancients. They trademarked Dota. Dota 2 is the sequel to DotA, but it isn't Defense of the Ancients 2.[/QUOTE] Capitalisation is irrelevant in text.